you'd think

[maiabulela]

Dear all,

I can't get the exact meaning of the expression "you'd think" in the following context, and actually in general :-(

DREW Wait a second. You just can't fire me just like this.

MR. WICK Oh, I'm afraid I can. Here's your pink slip, Carey.

CAREY I've been here for fifteen years. Doesn't that count for anything?

MR. WICK You'd think.


(There was laughter after that)


Thanks a lot.

 

[apex2000]

Firstly it is not good English. It is a line that appears in TV drama a lot.
It is offhand, uncaring. The underlying meaning in this case is: you'd think it should but not in your case.

 

[SoothingDave]

Why would you say it's not good English? There is nothing grammatically wrong with "you'd think."

 

[apex2000]

Why would you say it is, if that is what you are implying?

 

[maiabulela]

Firstly it is not good English. It is a line that appears in TV drama a lot.
It is offhand, uncaring. The underlying meaning in this case is: you'd think it should but not in your case.

Thanks a lot for considering the context :up:

 

[SoothingDave]

"You'd think" is a contraction for "you would think."

Now I ask you again. What is not "good English" about it?

 

[apex2000]

You would think what?
If you think that you need to explain contractions I really am puzzled.

 

[birdeen's call]

You would think what?
If you think that you need to explain contractions I really am puzzled.

Soothing Dave can't know what you consider good English. You could consider contractions bad English, why not--you didn't use a single contraction in this thread.

I don't understand what is wrong with "you'd think". You ask, "You would think what?" but you explained it yourself in post #2. It's a case of ellipsis, isn't it?

 

[SoothingDave]

What "you would think" is obvious from the context. I don't think "good English" requires that we always belabor the point.

 

[apex2000]

So let me pose another thought.
Would either of you frequently say 'you would think'?
This is not a case of belabouring a point; in this case it is whether or not it is good English, which for clarification is not the same as good grammar.
You would think so; would you think so?
Compare, say, d'you think, and d'you think?
I would reject the first because it is unfinished but I would say yes to the second (at least I hope that I do).
We were asked two questions and I dealt with both in the way that I did because we are trying to encourage good English.

 

[Barb_D]

Compare, say, d'you think, and d'you think?
I would reject the first because it is unfinished but I would say yes to the second (at least I hope that I do).

Sorry, I'm missing the difference here.

I, too, have no problem with "You'd think" in that context. It's quite clear from the dialogue what it is that "you would think." Are you suggesting that it if were "You'd think so" it would be okay?

 

[5jj]

Sorry, I'm missing the difference here?

Me too. Or is that bad English?

 

[bhaisahab]

I agree that "you would think so" is better English but it's from an American sitcom apparently (I've never seen it), so you can expect poor English.

 

[apex2000]

This may be just one of the differences between BrE and AmE. Perhaps it is more usual to say you'd think in the US; in the UK I say it is not good English. You'd think so is normal and leaves no other interpretation.

 

[SoothingDave]

I am not sure what other interpretation is possible that adding the word "so" precludes.

I'll admit it's rude and snarky, but it is a sitcom after all. I just don't see how it fails to communicate the idea.

 

[5jj]

This may be just one of the differences between BrE and AmE. Perhaps it is more usual to say you'd think in the US; in the UK I say it is not good English. You'd think so is normal and leaves no other interpretation.

I don't think anyone would claim that it is the 'best' English. However, with the appropriate intonation in spoken English it would appear to be acceptable. The problem for me, and I suspect some others, is that you wrote simply, "Firstly it is not good English" without any qualification. You then wrote, "It is a line that appears in TV drama a lot." Well, if it appears a lot, I would suggest that it must be acceptable to some people. Finally, you wrote, "It is offhand, uncaring"; this suggested to me that your objection might be based on moral rather than linguistic grounds.

 

[apex2000]

I am not sure what other interpretation is possible that adding the word "so" precludes.

I'll admit it's rude and snarky, but it is a sitcom after all. I just don't see how it fails to communicate the idea.

You'd think not.
You'd think maybe.

 

[apex2000]

I don't think anyone would claim that it is the 'best' English. However, with the appropriate intonation in spoken English it would appear to be acceptable. The problem for me, and I suspect some others, is that you wrote simply, "Firstly it is not good English" without any qualification. You then wrote, "It is a line that appears in TV drama a lot." Well, if it appears a lot, I would suggest that it must be acceptable to some people. Finally, you wrote, "It is offhand, uncaring"; this suggested to me that your objection might be based on moral rather than linguistic grounds.

I accept that I could well have gone into a much longer explanation, but that did not seem warranted in the first instance. That something appears in TV drama does not mean that it is necessarily in regular use outside TV or that it is good. Unfortunately we hear a lot of rubbish spoken on TV and not only in drama. Additionally, a lot of what is said on TV is unintelligible ( something I blame Marlon Brando for ) - reality v frustration.

My original comments were based solely on the context given. That has nothing to do with anything else.

 

[SoothingDave]

You'd think not.
You'd think maybe.

Sorry, not getting that. "Maybe" is just a lighter form of "so" so it's irrelevant.

Your confusion then seems to be whether "you'd think" means "you would think" or "you wouldn't think."

I just don't see the ambiguity. Especially in a verbal exchange of banter.

 

[5jj]

(1.)That something appears in TV drama does not mean that it is necessarily in regular use outside TV or that it is good. (2). Unfortunately we hear a lot of rubbish spoken on TV and not only in drama. [...]
(3.) My original comments were based solely on the context given. That has nothing to do with anything else.

1. If something is said regularly, then it is not particularly helpful just to say that it is not good English. The learner needs to know if it is acceptable in certain contexts and, if so, in which.

2.' A lot of rubbish' could be interpreted in many ways. If you mean merely that not everybody speaks like Alvar Lidell, then that is simply a reflection of the way society is.
Alvar Lidell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. In the context given, the words were probably natural and appropriate.

You wrote earlier, ”We are trying to encourage good English”. If you mean by that such things as the avoidance of split infinitives, faithful use of the subjunctive, banning of such constructions as ‘it's me’, I hope we’re not. I (for I can speak only for myself) am trying to help people to acquire a command of English that is appropriate for them